Help desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 29[edit]

Numbering paragraphs with alpha...[edit]

A couple of years ago I think I saw an instance where someone knew how to get the numbered paragraphing feature to use consecutive letters rather consecutive numbers. As I recall, they prefaced a list with a small snippet of meta instructions. Then when they prefaced lines with octothorps, the paragraphs were numbered with letters.

He or she made it look so easy I thought I would remember how, without making notes. Now I would like to use that feature, but I can't remember how, and I can't find where this is documented.

Can anyone help me out? Is there anything to my memory of it being fairly easy to set up?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First item
Second item
Third item

Or:

First item
Second item
Third item

See here for the various types you can use. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But see also MOS:HEAD and Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Headings and sections for headings and sections on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I did find the www.w3.org page. But it is more complicated than my recollected example. My recollected example used wiki-codes, not html codes. Now maybe this isn't (currently) possible. I do have enough familiarity with html to read simple lists and tables. But it is a strain. And I am sure many to many wiki contributors it is totally opaque. I think wiki style tables and wiki style lists are so much easier to read that I would be extremely reluctant to use html style tables and lists because their opacity makes them basically unmaintainable for almost all wiki contributors.

As I said, maybe I just remember it wrong.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Metro Page[edit]

Resolved

– ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please put a box on the Moscow Metro page stating that it contains info about a Current event that is in progress, as I dont know how to do it. Thank you --86.10.88.179 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username violation - spam?[edit]

Please review this userpage: InvestUnite. --Morenooso (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a violation of username policy. Just for reference, these should be reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page is now gone[edit]

I just created an article on "World Healing Day" a moment ago, and now it is gone (?)

How can I bring it back? Why did it go away?Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtaichiday (talk • contribs) 07:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You created no such article. Most likely, your web browser timed out before or while saving the page, and that save never reached the Wikipedia servers. It is highly advisable to save any hard work you've done on your own computer before clicking save. These sorts of errors are unfortunate, but inevitable. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, create World Healing Day again! If you wish, you could use our article wizard. You might also wish to see an article on how to write your first article. You could additionally see how to start a new article. Best ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia directly on my website[edit]

can I use Wikipedia directly on my website? i mean for some stuff I need to provide my users detailed information,so can I redirect the details directly to wikipedia page without violating any copyrights ? or is there some specific procedure to do that?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.112.156 (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should read a guideline for citing Wikipedia. It'll surely help. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Stephen Hawking has reverted to Islam?[edit]

Hi

I just saw a video that shows Stephen Hawking talking through his computer about converting his religious views. I checked Wikipedia to confirm and found nothing. So is the video a farce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.25 (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory Google search shows that no reliable sources have covered his alleged conversion (which would explain why it hadn't made it to Wikipedia), so I would be more inclined to believe that the videos are hoaxes. I can't imagine it would be that hard to fake a video where Hawking says whatever you want, due to the fact that his voice is a synthesizer and his face remains motionless during speech. And in the future, this desk is for help using Wikipedia; the Reference desk is a better place to ask general knowledge questions like this one. —Akrabbim^talk 12:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently a fake video using images from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr5MCbIPPsA but I don't know which video you saw. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit Wikipedia article on Rottnest Island[edit]

Whenever I press "Show Preview" or "Save Page" (in Mozilla), my computer downloads index.php with 0 bytes and the article remains unchanged.

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks

Willie Wagtail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williewagtail (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your preferences by clicking my preferences at the top of a page. Then click the "editing" tab. Look for the options called "Use external editor by default (for experts only, needs special settings on your computer)" and "Use external diff by default (for experts only, needs special settings on your computer)". If those options are checked, uncheck them, press "Save", and try again. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with our portal[edit]

We're having trouble keeping Portal:Wikipedia essays populated. When we add a new Featured Essay by clicking the redlink and adding it, it just changes to a new redlink. Same with Featured Quote. What are we doing wrong? ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 13:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Wikipedia essays has source code {{Random portal component with nominate|max=5|header=Featured essay|footer=More essays...| subpage=Featured essay}} and {{Random portal component|max=14|header=''Selected quote''|subpage=Selected quote}}. The max= parameter says how many numbered subpages to pick randomly from. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Wikipedia essays shows the only current pages are Portal:Wikipedia essays/Featured essay/2 and Portal:Wikipedia essays/Selected quote/10. If you want to display random portal components then you have to create pages from 1 to some integer n and then set max=n. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same Title, Different Entry[edit]

I am looking for some guidance on how to make a page searchable ("Peter Rowe - Filmmaker") when already exists is a page called "Peter Rowe". When the phrase "Peter Rowe" is searched, it brings up a specific page. Is there any way to change that so when the name is searched, several pages come up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philpallen (talk • contribs) 13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're looking to create a disambiguation page. The links I added to the right may be of use to you. Here is an example of one just like the one that would serve your purpose. My suggestion would be to move "Peter Rowe" to "Peter Rowe (politician)", and then create a disambiguation page at "Peter Rowe" that links to all of these. If you need more detailed help let us know. —Akrabbim^talk 13:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating links to other Wikipedia articles in a new article[edit]

Having read the help column it is still not clear to me how I create links in a new article. For example, I am mentioning the Hotel Theresa, which has an existing Wikipedia article; after the words Hotel Theresa appear in the text, what exactly do I have to do then to make it appear in blue and become a link? 71.113.162.97 (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put them between matching pairs of brackets. Thus [[Hotel Theresa]] becomes Hotel Theresa. TN X Man 13:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or select the words, and pick the "Internal link" button above your edit window (for me it is the third button along and shows Ab). --ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark Manuel for Examining Procedures[edit]

How do I order this book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.65.12 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well this is not a question relating to Wikipedia. Do you need any help with Wikipedia? ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 14:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. TN X Man 14:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted account ?[edit]

Hello ! This question is very important. Could you please confirm if the account "istandard" ever existed ? It is supposed to have been created early January 2010. I already checked the "users list" [1] and also the "user rename log" [2]. Several pages were updated until the 15th of February. Then everything disappeared, both the account and the modifications. Is that possible ? One of my colleague pretends that it really happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natachacopin (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted. Do you know any of the pages that this account supposedly edited? --Mysdaao ^talk 16:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, no, User:istandard has never existed. There's nothing there now and, as Mysdaao says, accounts cannot be deleted. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I explained to the colleague. The tricky part is that this person does not remember the pages updated (!) and was not in the office but in an internet cafe (!!). So you confirm that this account never existed and that it is impossible for an account to disappear ? Could a "bug" happen ? (I really need to be sure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natachacopin (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. If you click on User:Istandard, you'll see a message saying the account has never been created. TN X Man 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no, a bug is extremely unlikely to have wiped out the information. Unless the data never made it to the Wikipedia servers, there definitely was no User:Istandard. Unless the colleague remembered the spelling wrong. —Akrabbim^talk 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help. I wonder if my colleague will have the honesty to admit that nothing was ever done... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natachacopin (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of other wikis besides the English Wikipedia. Your colleague could easily have confused the English Wikipedia with another similar-looking wiki. The first place to look for a bug is in your colleague's understanding of Wikipedia. How much editing experience does your colleague have on Wikipedia? --Teratornis (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion possible. A first account was created in June and was used until November, this one is in the users list. So instead of admiting that nothing was done between November and February the colleague came up with this "ghost" account story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natachacopin (talk • contribs) 06:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pcupdate[edit]

Is it just me or when you put five tildes in pcupdate on footballers pages, it comes up with the time one hour before the time you sent it at. As the clocks went back last night i wondered what is going on. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It gives the time in UTC. For me it is either four or five hours ahead, depending on whether daylight savings is on. If it use to give the right time for you, maybe you were living in a timezone that was on UTC before the time change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my signature with five tildes > 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my signature with four tildes > ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my signature with three tildes > ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}

The actual time right now in my town is 11.20 pm. See the difference? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New rollbacker[edit]

I was recently made a rollbacker, and I would like to get another experienced rollbacker or administrators opinion on weather my use of the rollback feature recently was appropriate. See my user contributions for this information. Immunize (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been rollbacking for awhile now, so I took a look at your reverts. All of them appear to be obvious cases of vandalism and you warned in most cases, so it looks like you're doing a great job! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And my revert on Tetanus was an appropriate rollback as well? Immunize (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. TN X Man 17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are edits that add the extraneous word "hi" appropriate for rollback, or not? Immunize (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show a particular diff please? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look in my contributions for the diff. Immunize (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this diff, surely, it qualifies for a rollback. However, in case you are referring to some other 'hi', do please provide the diff. Best ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found adding 'hi' to be one of the most common type of vandalism. I use rollback when I see it added. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your name pop up during vandalism patrol more then a few times, and so far each instance appeared to be one where i would have reverted myself. Edits that add texts such as "Hi", "Hello" or "X was here" are prime examples where rollback may be used as they are clearly not constructive. Rollback should only be evaded if you are not certain something should be reverted, or if the user made multiple edits whereas only the last one seems to have an issue. As for your vandalism patrol: Keep up the good work! :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have used rollback to revert content removal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supraventricular_tachycardia&diff=352989408&oldid=352989373 here. I assume that this is an appropriate use of rollback? 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If the edit qualifies as "blatantly unproductive", then yes, you are allowed to rollback. The only use of rollback that is universally frowned upon is when rollback is used to enforce your side of a content dispute, or (more generally) in any edit war. Those, in particular, are big no-nos and will likely lead to your rollback privilege being revoked. Also, if you rollback an edit that is not considered to be "blatantly unproductive", you would probably get a warning. Unless the violation was particularly egregious, though, you probably wouldn't lose the tool. The general guideline is "If you're not sure whether to rollback or not, undo instead because you can leave an edit summary." Xenon54 / talk / 18:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question section-blanked. Is that considered "blatantly unproductive"? Immunize (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, unless there is a legitimate reason for the section blanking, such as the section being unsourced, unverifiable, or original research or if the section otherwise contravenes Wikipedia policy (which does not appear to be the case). Xenon54 / talk / 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By mistake I clicked on the rollback button very recently. I have reverted it, but am still concerned. Will there be any long term implications for me, because of this mistake? It happened in sandbox Immunize (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What occurred was that I was looking at the recent changes and I saw an edit that said "replaced content with..." When I see those sorts of edits, given that they are typically vandalism, I reflexively revert, sometimes without looking at the actual page it occurred on. Immunize (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a major problem - we all make mistakes sometimes. And in this case, taking a moment to look over the edit would have been helpful. It was actually vandalism because the editor removed the sandbox header, which specifically says, "don't remove this". I have replaced it, but no, I don't think there will be any long term implications. I've done stuff like that before, like when I reverted an edit to a "vandalism page". I just removed my warning and replaced the edit. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that an edit like [one] and the one made on Watergate scandal qualify for rollback. 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right on both. Stop worrying! You will get a message on your talk page if someone thinks you are misusing the tool. You won't get de-rollbacked if you make one or two innocent mistakes. – ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Not Online[edit]

A major part of my article will be coming from a newsletter that only exists in paper form, and almost all issues probably only exist in my office (this concerns a history of a society and these newsletters are the only history we have). Can my article be based on these sources? Compubs (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources which explains what claims you can and cannot support from such sources. Note that a major part of an article cannot come from such self-published sources. --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, in fact most are not. However, they must be Source able pls see-->Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources (meaning the public should have access to them in some form) So the question i have to ask you is Can this paper be found by the public at larger or are they hidden in your filing cabinet never to be seen by the public! Can you find a second /third party publication on this info!Moxy (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:COI, WP:OWN, and WP:BFAQ. Your account shows only this edit. If you did not have extensive editing experience before creating your account, you should not attempt to create a new article until you have gained more editing experience on existing articles and read more of the friendly manuals. A high percentage of new articles by new users get deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia's complex requirements (see WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOT). If you are determined to try anyway, see WP:YFA, WP:NAW, and WP:LAYOUT. --Teratornis (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming[edit]

A Couple of categories need renamimg:

Category:Religious organizations established the 1850s
Category:Religious organizations established the 1870s

they have an "in" missing; I don't know how to rename categories; can someone do the needful ? GrahamHardy (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EIW#Catbot lists some bots that can rename categories. I guess you can make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. --Teratornis (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List the categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I think they'll fall under the criteria for speedy renaming. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done it...GrahamHardy (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicion of cracking of no.wikipedia.org servers?[edit]

I recently received the email below (in Norwegian). However, I have never opened any account on no.wikipedia.org before... Thanks in advance for your help!

-------- Message original --------
Sujet : 	Wikipedia-siden Brukerdiskusjon:DavidBourguignon har blitt opprettet av CartoonistHenning
Date : 	Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:02:01 +0000
De : 	WikiAdmin <[email protected]>
Répondre à : 	[email protected]


DavidBourguignon,

Wikipedia-siden Brukerdiskusjon:DavidBourguignon har blitt opprettet
28. mar 2010 av CartoonistHenning, se
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brukerdiskusjon:DavidBourguignon for den
nåværende versjonen.

Dette er en ny side.

Redigeringssammendrag: Ny side: {{subst:velkommen2}}[[Special:Contributions/90.46.214.78|90.46.214.78]] ([[User talk:90.46.214.78|talk]]) 20:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 

Kontakt brukeren:
e-post http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spesial:E-post/CartoonistHenning
wiki http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:CartoonistHenning

Det vil ikke komme flere påminnelser om endringer på denne siden med
mindre du besøker den. Du kan også fjerne påminnelsesflagg for alle
sider i overvåkningslisten din.

Med vennlig hilsen,
Wikipedias påminnelsessystem

--
For å endre innstillingene i overvåkningslisten din, besøk
http://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spesial:Watchlist&edit=yes

Tilbakemeldinger og videre assistanse:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hjelp

Using a rough translation from Google translate, it is a message sent to User:DavidBourguignon from the Norwegian Wikipedia when another user sent a message to DavidBourguignon on his talk page on the Norwegian Wikipedia (see no:Brukerdiskusjon:DavidBourguignon). I presume that you are DavidBourguignon, and you signed up for a unified login so an account for you was automatically created on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Some other language Wikipedias automatically send an e-mail to the user when a message is sent to them. --Mysdaao ^talk 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I believe that some language Wiki's automatically create a user page with a welcome message if that wiki in question is visited by a user. If you have a Single User Login account you will be automatically recognized by other language wiki's as well. I presume you ended up on that wiki somehow, a welcome template was added, and you were mailed because of this. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens on smaller wikis. my login exist on 729 wikis last I checked, and I get these emails often. ^Avicenna_sis @

Tor exit node blocking[edit]

Yesterday I run a a Tor exit node for a few hours and today I was blocked because of WP:NOP.

I understand the Wikipedia policy but I want to know if if the block is permanent and if not when

does it expire. When I realized I was blocked I was no longer running the exit node (it's been offline

for about 12 hours). Almogo (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account User:Almogo has never been blocked and you wouldn't be able to edit this page if the account was blocked. Some blocks on IP addresses also prevent registered users from editing while they are on that IP address but not when they change to an unblocked IP address. See more at Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. I probably should have clarified that it was the IP that was blocked. All I am interested in knowing is if the block on the IP is permanent and if not for how long because I would have to take it into consideration next time before starting a tor exit node. Almogo (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click "User contributions" in the toolbox to the left when you are on the IP talk page, or enter the IP at Special:Contributions, for example leading to Special:Contributions/69.245.111.166. This should display the duration of a current block. "indefinite" means forever or until somebody unblocks it. Click "block log" on the contributions page to see all blocks and unblocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was useful. It appears that the IP is no longer blocked (nothing appears on the search result). Almogo (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that the IP is still blocked and will be until May. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mmm... it didn't appear in the search results but it is possible that I mistyped (I don't know if it is appropriate to post it here so I won't). Can you confirm that it doesn't appear in the blocked ip's search? Anyway, I think the blocking time is too long. I believe that if you run a tor exit node you either run it for a very long time on a permanent machine or for very short durations.. Blocking for a month or two does not really accomplish anything in this case. Since the IP was blocked almost immediately I assume that information is taken from a public list of exit nodes. if that is the case it would be more appropriate to unblock IP's that no longer appear on the list. Almogo (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP PrimerHunt posted was an example. It is not the IP I am talking about. Almogo (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

69.245.111.166 was a random example. I don't know the IP Almogo refers to. If the IP is affected by a range block then it may not show up in the logs for that particular IP but be seen at Special:BlockList, for example a short block affecting 141.117.232.17 until tomorrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

The article NHL 2K9 reads like an advert. I have already tagged it with {{advert}}. What else can I do? It isn't worthy of speedy deletion, because it is clearly notable and isn't spam per se. But all of the article, except the opening few lines, reads like the back of the box, or like some magazine review. Is there another template for discussion of deletion? If there is, then should it be applied in this case? I know that some people might be tempted to say "well just improve it", but I don't know enough about the video game world. I do know that the article needs a lot of work. So in the spirit of wp:bold, I want to put a possible delete template in the hope that someone with the time, the knowledge and the inclination might improve the article. •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think threatening to delete an article would tend to discourage others from improving it. Who would spend their time editing a Wikipedia article that seems to have a chance of getting deleted? Would you to renovate your house if it had a 50% chance of being demolished in a week? I don't think that threatening to level someone's house will motivate them to fix it up, particularly if they are unsure just how much they need to fix it up to meet standard. If you want people to volunteer to work on something, they are much more likely to do that if they are confident their time won't end up being completely wasted. If there's nothing you can do to improve an article, I suggest finding some other article you know how to improve, and edit that instead. Wikipedia already has plenty of deletionists who are very good at deleting articles, so if NHL 2K9 is beyond help it will probably be gone soon enough. Particularly now that you've called attention to it. --Teratornis (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your analogy was a very good one, but to run with it. If the government said to me "Your house is a mess: it is an eyesore. If you don't fix it up then we will be forced to knock it down." Then I would find out exactly what needed to be done, and then do it. Wouldn't you? If no-one is ready to fix the article then maybe it should go. It is an advert. Maybe there are many "deletionists" but that doesn't mean that the articles didn't need to go: there needs to be consensus before articles can be deleted. The ubiquitousness of "deletionists" just means that people aren't following the guidelines like they should. This isn't a billboard; it is supposed to be an encyclopedia! •• Fly by Night (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your reply your write:

"Then I would find out exactly what needed to be done, and then do it."

In your first message you wrote:

"I know that some people might be tempted to say "well just improve it", but I don't know enough about the video game world."

You seem to imply that other Wikipedia users are very different than you. Maybe that isn't entirely true - most people probably find it difficult to learn how to write articles on Wikipedia. The people who wrote the existing revision of the NHL 2K9 probably don't know enough about Wikipedia's complex rules yet. It might be hard for them to learn the rules here. Maybe you are the most capable editor who cares about this article. Anybody can learn about video games, but how many people can understand Wikipedia?

One place to start would be to look at the history of the article, and leave messages on the user talk pages of all the contributors explaining what is wrong with the article in its current state, with links to all the manual pages a person would have to read to understand how to fix what needs fixing. Give people the time they need to absorb all that material, and see what happens. If that doesn't work, then tighten the thumbscrews a bit by putting the article up for deletion.

"Well just improve it" is a guideline: WP:SOFIXIT. When possible we should do things ourselves rather than to try to get other people to do them. In many organizations there are more people who like to give orders than people who like to take orders. There are always more "thinkers" than "doers". If you want to help Wikipedia, become more of a "doer" and less of a "thinker". Find something you can learn to do, learn it, and do it. See WP:BACKLOG for some long and growing lists of tasks compiled by Wikipedia's thinkers that await Wikipedia's doers. Any time you spend thinking about what you don't know how to fix is time you don't spend fixing what you know how to fix.

Other points:

No analogy is perfect. I should have picked an example of a shared resource rather than a personally owned one. On Wikipedia nobody owns an article. A homeowner might be coerced into fixing his house if the alternative is homelessness. A better analogy with Wikipedia might be convincing the neighbors to volunteer to fix up an abandoned house which is becoming an eyesore. In that case, if people think there is any chance that the house will be torn down, they aren't likely to help. They must know their efforts will actually preserve the house.
Deletion does not require consensus. Plenty of pages get deleted despite having "keep" votes. Look at the deletion discussions on WP:AFD.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is also a wiki. On a wiki, improvement may take a long time. Wikipedia users do not agree on how much time to allow for improvement. See m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies.

--Teratornis (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd tag it with {{rewrite}} if it was really terrible, but better still would be to leave a note with, say, WP:VG to get more eyes on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]